Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-11-23
THE BRIDGE CONTROVERSY.
The United States Begins Action 10 En-.
Join the Railroad Company.

THE BILL FILED IN COURT THIS xoRNrNe-rHr CON-
PANY SAID 10 HAVE NO RIGHTS AT THE LOCALITY
IN DISPUTE.
The Eastern Branch Bridge controversy was to.
day transferred TO the courts the judicial authority
being invoked to prevent the Baltimore and Poto-
mac Railroad Company from interfering further
with the construction OF q pier and abutment for
the bridge at the foot Of Pennsylvania avenue.
The United States to-day, by Attorney General
Garland and District Attorney worthington, nled
bill against the railroad company for an injunc-
ton. The bill sets forth the Incorporation OF the
DEFENDANT company with the right TO enter the
city by one Of two routes, at the Intersection
OF Boundary street and North Carolina avenue, TO
street TO west OF 9th street. and the other entering
between and NJ streets south, on the north shore
OF the Eastern Branch, 10 Virginia avenue and
south street, virginia avenue 10 street. TO 4th,
thence curvtng to the right to the north bank OF
tne canal TO Virginia avenue, TO c street west OF
9th street west.
The complainant further states that on the 23d
OF February last q contract was made with the
Groton Bridge and Manufacturing Co. for the con-
from the terminus Of Pennsylvania avenue south
east. IL charges that, while the defendant had
the rlgnt 10 enter the city by either OF the TWO
routes named 1t has not entered by either OF them,
but has come In by tracks considerably 10 the east
ward or South street. and crosses with its tracks
the circle at the foot Of Pennsylvania avenue The
are so located without authority, yet in order that
It's operations might be unhindered by the con-
strucuon OF the western approach TO the bridge,
provision was made for the abutment and pier
between which space or 81 feet In length was
lelt Tor a roadway at great and sunicient eleva-
SuUn, rs deet above the tracks ooth per ana
public property OF the United states.
The bill further states that the said avenue and
that the @ Of he ar Sne Bridge snd
featuring Co.. on November 10, 1887, under their
contract entered on said circle and began making
abutment. IL is charged that the defendant,
by direction Of its Officers, caused the
excavation TO be wrongfully filled, and by the
PEELED stoppage OF the work. which has conse-
quently been brought to stand The complain
ant further states that the contracting company
Will look TO the defendant for indemnify, and II
may be rendered liable 1or damages. The COM
plalnant prays an Injunction to restrain the de-
tendant from any interference with the work ON
the pier and abutment.
TIE BRIDGE coMPANY's COMPLAINT
Appended TO the bill for Injunction is the am
davit of Frank Conger vice-president OF the Bridge
Company, setting forth that the plans provide for
an abutment and pier, and q span between the
same OF 81 feet in length for roadway over the
Company, and at an elevation Of IL feet above
the tracks, and that the construction OF
the abutment viii In no manner interfere
with the defendants trains; that they began the
work OF excavation at O'Clock ON the lSlh Instant
and about an hour after Mr.. Reed, engineer or the
railroad, demanded a cessation OF the work: that
the WorK was continued till noon when, IN the alb
since OF the bridge company's workmen at
dinner, the workmcn OF the railroad COM
pany renNed the excavations; that after
dinner the workmen OF the bridge company essayed
TO proceed with the work, and wornmen OF the
railroad company entered, and as last as dirt W as
thrown out threw 1t back, until finally the excava-
ton was completely nlled he has been Informed
tnat II Is useless to attempt TO proceed
for the railroad would bring thousand
men toprevent ais operations II necessary. The
work Is therefore OF necessity suspended, though
the Groton Co. Is required by its contract 10 COM
pete the bridge before August l, 1885, and has ex-
ecuted bond in the penalty OF 3D. 600.
Other afiidavits also are nled showing that the
road Is located on the pubic ground.
WHAT Is SAID ON EACH sIDE
Mr.. Totten, the attorney of the railroad company,
said this morning that the question was one Tor
the engineers TO determine The railroad CON-
pany claim that they are right under the law,
and that the attempt Is made TO dig the fOunda.
ton within their right OF way 60 feet wide and
While the company has no track on the exact spot
In controversy they contemplate laying track
there.
The representative OF the bridge company said
10 STAR reporter, this morning, that there was
but a width OF 10 feet or ground involved, and an
attempt had been made to come TO an understand
ing. He deprecated an appeal TO the courts, as he
said 1t would cost more than 1t would to pay for
the grounu needed.
Al the depot some OF the employees say that the
company Is not opposed 70 the erection OF the
bridge; but, as p matter OF principle, they could
not give up any VI tneir rights 70 the ground.